Lasarus v Board of Management of Fayantina Community School [2000] PGDC 47; DC469 (25 October 2000)

DC469

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 445 OF 2000

Timothy Lasarus
Complainant

V

Board of Management of Fayantina Community School
Defendant

Goroka: Manue F
2000: 25th October

Cases Cited

MANUE F: This is a case arising out of a verbal contract which required the complainant to build four classrooms at Fayantina Community School. Work was completed and the complainant was paid only One Thousand Four Hundred Kina (K1,400.00) from the Three Thousand Kina (K3,000.00) alleged agreed upon as his labour costs. He sued for the outstanding of One Thousand Six Hundred Kina (K1,600.00).

There are certain matters that need to be clarified before deciding on whether the complainant is entitled for what he claims. There is no dispute whether the work was done by the complainant satisfactorily . There is however two versions of the parties involved in the contract.

One version, according to the complainant is that: The complainant alleged that he was approached by Mr. Jack, the chairman of the school board. Mr. Jack was accompanied by John, another carpenter. The complainant was offered on uncertain terms job to build four (4) classrooms. The only term offered was that three Thousand (K3,000.00) Kina had been budgeted by the school for labour costs. Furthermore, transport and food would be provided by the school. There was nothing said in relation to casual labour costs. After that conversation, the complainant engaged another carpenter to assist him in the assigned work and the two proceeded in the construction task.

The other version was raised by the defendant through their witness, a former Headmaster of the Community School. The witness alleged that the contract was verbally negotiated with a carpenter by the name of John. He assumed that the said complainant carpenter was engaged by the said carpenter, John. John was not called to verify that alleged verbal contract.

I now have to decide which party was intended to carry out the work intended by the defendant. This has to be decided prior to saying whether the complainant was properly and by consent engaged to perform what was required.

It would seem that the former Headmaster had negotiated with John before Jack the School Board Chairman approached the complainant and made the offers. What is not made clear to me, at this stage is in what capacity the former Headmaster acted: whether he was acting as a servant of the state in his profession as Headmaster or as a servant of the school board in conveying the Boards resolution. In response to a question put by the Court whether, there was any minutes of the school board in relation to the contract of classrooms building, he replied in the negative and added that al the relevant talks were made verbally. It seems there was no tender called, nor was there any document indicating which carpenter was engaged.

Despite the efforts of the former Headmaster, the John carpenter, said to have been engaged by the school board via the former Headmaster regardless of whatever capacity he acted, that deal lapsed. The John carpenter did not end up in the school performing what he was engaged to do. Neither was he there to ensure the completion of the work, essentially when the complainant stopped work for a day, due to non-payment of the fifty percent (50%) of the labour costs as agreed between Jack and the complainant. I therefore take it that the agreement between the former Headmaster and John carpenter lapsed for non-performance of the agreement and that the complainant’s claim stands. The complainant was properly engaged by the defendant school board.

I now refer to the minor issue of providing casual labour. This is to be decided first in order for me to circulate what is owing and remaining to the complainant. Evidence suggests that two casual laborers assisted in the work and were paid K200.00 each.

I infer that the complainant did not engage them. The initial agreement was that the complainant was hired to build the four (4) classrooms for K3,000.00. In my view, any other persons involved in the construction work were only by approval of the complainant. He was the principal party to the deal and he was at liberty to hire anyone else, so long as he is able to pay them within the among agreed to be paid for the hire job, in this case from the K3,000.00. Anyone else employed without his knowledge or consent was not his responsibility to pay them.

Complainant has denied engaging anyone else apart from Andrew. Payments made to the casual laborers from the K3,000.00 budgeted for labour costs was wrongfully made, as these persons were not engaged by the complainant. I infer that the complainant had taken into account the K400.00 given to him and Andrew resulting in him claiming for my K1,600.00 other than K2,000.00 from the defendant.

I find therefore that the defendant owes the complainant One Thousand Six Hundred Kina (K1,6000.00) and not Eight Hundred Kina (K800.00).

It is therefore adjudged that the defendant pays the complainant the following:-

Principal Debt K1,600.00

Legal Costs K 1.60

To amount adjudged K1,601.60

To be paid within two months from this day in default warrant of execution be issued.

Given under my hand this 25th October, 2000 at Goroka.